Bill Still's Money Masters

[Paulie]

There's no point in singling any particular politician or party out.

too stupid!!! Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's first. Democrats killed them all. Newts passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate.

Do you know what our debt would be today if Newts Republican BBA had passed??????

Oh my god a BBA!

It's a good thing that would guarantee taxes aren't raised as part of the balancing

 

[joewp]

Stop making stuff up. Nobody said you were paying interest on the $20. I said someone, somewhere is paying interest on it.

I'm holding the $20. If someone is paying interest on it, why don't I receive that interest?

Is that really a serious question? Of course you don't get any interest, you're holding. Now if you lend it to someone for interest, then you collect interest on it, but no longer have it. How can you image holding a $20 entitles you to anything except that $20?

I think if I said so were collecting interest on it, I'd remember. Why are you bringing in this irrelevant crap?

It's your idiotic "interest attached" claim that is irrelevant. I keep showing why.

All you keep showing is your lack of understanding.

I owe interest on the $20 I gave to you.

No, you owe interest on your loan. Whether you still hold the $20 or not.

You take out a loan and stash the cash in your mattress. Are you paying interest for that money or not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stop making stuff up. Nobody said you were paying interest on the $20. I said someone, somewhere is paying interest on it.

I'm holding the $20. If someone is paying interest on it, why don't I receive that interest?

Is that really a serious question? Of course you don't get any interest, you're holding. Now if you lend it to someone for interest, then you collect interest on it, but no longer have it. How can you image holding a $20 entitles you to anything except that $20?

I think if I said so were collecting interest on it, I'd remember. Why are you bringing in this irrelevant crap?

It's your idiotic "interest attached" claim that is irrelevant. I keep showing why.

All you keep showing is your lack of understanding.

I owe interest on the $20 I gave to you.

No, you owe interest on your loan. Whether you still hold the $20 or not.

You take out a loan and stash the cash in your mattress. Are you paying interest for that money or not?

How can you image holding a $20 entitles you to anything except that $20?

I don't imagine that. But you keep claiming there is interest attached.
I've looked, I see no strings, no glue, nothing attached anywhere.

You take out a loan and stash the cash in your mattress. Are you paying interest for that money or not?

I pay interest on the loan, whether I hold the $20s, spend them or set them on fire.

 

[joewp]

I see your problem. You only can see the superficial consequences of your scenarios.

You mean the consequence of the debt shrinking while the money supply doesn't?
Yeah, that would be awful.

No, the money supply does shrink. All the people without jobs wouldn't be able to get loans. They're be less money in their banks accounts to use as reserves for loans to others.

Think about it for a minute. What the stupid shit really is is 10s or 100s of thousands of people across the country. They stop spending, the delis and restaurants near the job suffer and have to lay off workers or close, and it just cascades into its own recession.

Yes, we must continue spending trillions extra every year, because of the delis.
I'll be sure to tell my kids their taxes will have to rise to pay for your idiocy.

Of course, if it was your deli, you'd tell your kids you're poor because the government closed the military base down the block and you had to close.

I'll bet you don't even know the last time the national debt was $0.

That would be the day before the Federal government borrowed their first dollar.

Nope. That would be 1835, after Jackson killed off the Second Bank of the United States.

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why,

Because it can....because you're stupid.

"Stupid" people don't post links that show proof of their assertions.
I post links, you don't.

 

[joewp]

if the Fed did not print money to buy Obama's debt Obama could not issue so much debt for welfare payments and Americans would have to go back to work and end this recession!!

So says the guy who thinks supermarkets don't have fixed assets.

Eddie, you obviously don't understand lots of stuff.

Welfare payments? Really? They'd "go back to work"? WHERE???

http://www.bls.gov/web/jolts/jlt_labstatgraphs.pdf
As of December, there were 3.4 unemployed per job opening. Where do they work, Eddie?

I have a few friends who are only being kept alive by unemployment insurance. They've been trying to find jobs, even working delivering pizzas, or bartending (these are college-educated people with masters degrees).
What world do you live in where just wanting a job gets you one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see your problem. You only can see the superficial consequences of your scenarios.

You mean the consequence of the debt shrinking while the money supply doesn't?
Yeah, that would be awful.

No, the money supply does shrink. All the people without jobs wouldn't be able to get loans. They're be less money in their banks accounts to use as reserves for loans to others.

Think about it for a minute. What the stupid shit really is is 10s or 100s of thousands of people across the country. They stop spending, the delis and restaurants near the job suffer and have to lay off workers or close, and it just cascades into its own recession.

Yes, we must continue spending trillions extra every year, because of the delis.
I'll be sure to tell my kids their taxes will have to rise to pay for your idiocy.

Of course, if it was your deli, you'd tell your kids you're poor because the government closed the military base down the block and you had to close.

I'll bet you don't even know the last time the national debt was $0.

That would be the day before the Federal government borrowed their first dollar.

Nope. That would be 1835, after Jackson killed off the Second Bank of the United States.

Nope, cause it can't happen. I won't bother to tell you why,

Because it can....because you're stupid.

"Stupid" people don't post links that show proof of their assertions.
I post links, you don't.

No, the money supply does shrink.

Treasury debt is not counted as part of the money supply.

All the people without jobs wouldn't be able to get loans.

We have over $16.6 trillion in debt, up almost $6 trillion since Obama took office.
Yet we still have 17 million unemployed.

Nope. That would be 1835, after Jackson killed off the Second Bank of the United States.


That's right, you're not afraid that we're going to cut the debt to zero again, are you?

"Stupid" people don't post links that show proof of their assertions.

You find a link yet that shows my $20 has interest attached?
Why can't I see the interest? Do you see interest on your $20s?

 

[joewp]

How can you image holding a $20 entitles you to anything except that $20?

I don't imagine that. But you keep claiming there is interest attached.
I've looked, I see no strings, no glue, nothing attached anywhere.

You take out a loan and stash the cash in your mattress. Are you paying interest for that money or not?

I pay interest on the loan, whether I hold the $20s, spend them or set them on fire.

Having problems with the English language now too?
Loan | Define Loan at Dictionary.com
something lent or furnished on condition of being returned, especially a sum of money lent at interest: a $1000 loan at 10 percent interest.

The money is the loan. So again, someone, somewhere is paying interest on that money because it was created as a loan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can you image holding a $20 entitles you to anything except that $20?

I don't imagine that. But you keep claiming there is interest attached.
I've looked, I see no strings, no glue, nothing attached anywhere.

You take out a loan and stash the cash in your mattress. Are you paying interest for that money or not?

I pay interest on the loan, whether I hold the $20s, spend them or set them on fire.

Having problems with the English language now too?
Loan | Define Loan at Dictionary.com
something lent or furnished on condition of being returned, especially a sum of money lent at interest: a $1000 loan at 10 percent interest.

The money is the loan. So again, someone, somewhere is paying interest on that money because it was created as a loan.

So again, someone, somewhere is paying interest on that money because it was created as a loan.

No, the $20s were not created as a loan.

 

[akelch]

Wow...this is a epic debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow...this is a epic debate.

Not really. Joe says something silly, I point it out, he does it again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow...this is a epic debate.

Griffin says this,

"When a borrower cannot repay and there are no assets which can be taken to compensate, the bank must write off that loan as a loss. However, since most of the money originally was created out of nothing and cost the bank nothing except bookkeeping overhead, there is little of tangible value that is actually lost"

And Joe defends it. Kinda silly, isn't it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There's no point in singling any particular politician or party out.

too stupid!!! Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's first. Democrats killed them all. Newts passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate.

Do you know what our debt would be today if Newts Republican BBA had passed??????

Oh my god a BBA!

It's a good thing that would guarantee taxes aren't raised as part of the balancing

what??????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So says the guy who thinks supermarkets don't have fixed assets.

very few as compared to asset heavy businesses like giant utilities which was the point that obviously went way over your head as usual

Welfare payments? Really? They'd "go back to work"? WHERE???

too stupid!! Ever hear of the law of supply and demand?? Supply equals demand for labor as long as liberals aren't paying people not to work and fixing the price. Over your head once again??

I have a few friends who are only being kept alive by unemployment insurance. They've been trying to find jobs, even working delivering pizzas, or bartending (these are college-educated people with masters degrees).
What world do you live in where just wanting a job gets you one?

ever hear of the law of supply and demand?? The entire economy runs it. Its for example why your supermarket has just the right number of apples each day. IF we don't have the right number of jobs its only because liberals interfere with the market. Over your head once again??

 

[akelch]

Wow...this is a epic debate.

Griffin says this,

"When a borrower cannot repay and there are no assets which can be taken to compensate, the bank must write off that loan as a loss. However, since most of the money originally was created out of nothing and cost the bank nothing except bookkeeping overhead, there is little of tangible value that is actually lost"

And Joe defends it. Kinda silly, isn't it?

So what "tangibles values" are lost? Seeing that most of this "money" is digital and logs in a book and not physical bills?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wow...this is a epic debate.

Griffin says this,

"When a borrower cannot repay and there are no assets which can be taken to compensate, the bank must write off that loan as a loss. However, since most of the money originally was created out of nothing and cost the bank nothing except bookkeeping overhead, there is little of tangible value that is actually lost"

And Joe defends it. Kinda silly, isn't it?

So what "tangibles values" are lost? Seeing that most of this "money" is digital and logs in a book and not physical bills?

too stupid!! Bank money is as real a the money in your pocket. That is why they go out of business when they don't make a profit. Did you think they just printed some one and started over???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow...this is a epic debate.

Griffin says this,

"When a borrower cannot repay and there are no assets which can be taken to compensate, the bank must write off that loan as a loss. However, since most of the money originally was created out of nothing and cost the bank nothing except bookkeeping overhead, there is little of tangible value that is actually lost"

And Joe defends it. Kinda silly, isn't it?

So what "tangibles values" are lost? Seeing that most of this "money" is digital and logs in a book and not physical bills?

You borrow $1 million and lose it.
The bank has to write off the loan.
That $1 million had no tangible value?
Is that your claim?

 

[joewp]

So again, someone, somewhere is paying interest on that money because it was created as a loan.

No, the $20s were not created as a loan.

So where was their value created? Please remember, when new, crisp stacks of $20 bills are sitting in the BE&P's vault, they're not money.

 

[joewp]

Griffin says this,

"When a borrower cannot repay and there are no assets which can be taken to compensate, the bank must write off that loan as a loss. However, since most of the money originally was created out of nothing and cost the bank nothing except bookkeeping overhead, there is little of tangible value that is actually lost"

And Joe defends it. Kinda silly, isn't it?

So what "tangibles values" are lost? Seeing that most of this "money" is digital and logs in a book and not physical bills?

too stupid!! Bank money is as real a the money in your pocket. That is why they go out of business when they don't make a profit. Did you think they just printed some one and started over???

You're half right, Eddie. When small and medium sized banks get into trouble, they end up being taken over by the FDIC who then doles out their assets to other, larger banks.
However, when the big NY banks get into trouble, they get bailed out by the taxpayers(too big too fail), which is one of Griffin's alleged objectives of the cartel; to keep the control of the money supply in the big NY banks.

For someone who still insists that supermarkets don't have substantial permanent assets, you throw the 'stupid' thing out way too much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So again, someone, somewhere is paying interest on that money because it was created as a loan.

No, the $20s were not created as a loan.

So where was their value created? Please remember, when new, crisp stacks of $20 bills are sitting in the BE&P's vault, they're not money.

So where was their value created?

When the Fed sells them to a bank.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're half right, Eddie. When small and medium sized banks get into trouble, they end up being taken over by the FDIC who then doles out their assets to other, larger banks.

if I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs. Slow?

However, when the big NY banks get into trouble, they get bailed out by the taxpayers (too big too fail),

some got bailed out once and paid the money back and other huge banks went bankrupt like Bear, WaMu, Lehman, Merryl,etc etc. What planet have you been on????

which is one of Griffin's alleged objectives of the cartel; to keep the control of the money supply in the big NY banks.

too stupid by 1000%!! Money supply is in hands of Federal Reserve

For someone who still insists that supermarkets don't have substantial permanent assets, you throw the 'stupid' thing out way too much.

again too stupid by 1000%. Its the classic ROI example in Finance 101 which, surprise, the liberal fool has not taken!
A supermarket can rent space and buy inventory on 120 day terms thus needing no fixes assets while a utility would have to built and pay for a nuclear power plant asset at a cost in the billions yet both yield the same ROI!!

Way over you pea brain liberal head - right??